Vouchers in Utah

Via Alex Tabarrok it looks like Utah may get a fairly comprehensive statewide voucher program. I won't pretend to note the state of educational play in Utah in any detail, but my strong suspicion is that this is very, very unlikely to lead to any noteworthy improvements in student achievement. It's a low population density state where the prospects for meaningful educational competition are not so hot. But more to the point, Utah features a very, very high proportion of the population belonging to a single hierarchical religion.

It seems to me that given a sufficiently generous voucher program (as Tabarrok notes, this one isn't quite there) education in Utah will evolve toward a system where the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is the de facto education provider throughout the bulk of the state, the LDS church gets a lot of taxpayer money, and people living in Salt Lake City and maybe a couple of other towns may have some secular alternative options available to them.

Comments

The LDS Church does not have many (if any) private schools now, at least none that I am aware of, so I don't know how eager they would be to get into the private school business.

And let's face it, given the Church's political domination in Utah, there's not much need for them to get into the private school business.

I am somewhat uneasy about vouchers, but I honestly don't expect anything drastic to happen.

Posted by Steve H. | February 5, 2007 5:16 PM

as i suspected initially, there really isn't much money involved with the proposal. utah was already one of the lowest (if not the lowest) in terms of per student expenditures, so even with money from outside foundations it was unlikely that the program would have much funding.

but you're probably right, given the religious homogeneity of people out SLC and the low population density, the LDS church will probably be the only private school provider in most areas.

Posted by looj | February 5, 2007 5:19 PM

It's a shame the Mormons wussed out on the only interesting thing about their religion which was of course the polygamy (the official underwear idea is kind of hot too but in reality the stuff isn't so sexy). If they hadn't I might be a fan of turning the whole state into some kind of Mormon training camp.

Posted by Linus | February 5, 2007 5:37 PM

"...low population density state...", yeah, but about 60% of that lives in salt lake city/ogden, just like any other big city.

and "...very, very high proportion of the population belonging to a single hierarchical religion...", what is "very very"? according to the salt lake city tribune

Professor Tim Heaton, who studies LDS demographics for church-owned Brigham Young University, says the county numbers probably come from church membership rolls, and that between half and one-third of those people are not active in the faith. If that's true, then, at most, 41.6 percent of Utahns are church-going Mormons.

41% is about the number of roman catholics in new mexico, would you characterize it in the same way?

Posted by supersaurus | February 5, 2007 5:42 PM

Supersaurus, that depends. Do the figures correlate? If the New Mexico numbers simply denote self-identified Catholics, then the comparison is incorrect.

Posted by Kiril | February 5, 2007 5:50 PM

I live in Utah so I can give some quick information:

1. Most of the state is LDS, and it's especially predominant outside SLC.
2. I'm not aware of ANY LDS private schools, but there are plenty of Catholic ones, especially in SLC.
3. I don't believe the vouchers will come close to covering the average private school tuition, but will definitely help out the richer ones who already can afford the private schools.
4. Parts of Utah are rural enough that some counties don't have a single private school.

Posted by Dave | February 5, 2007 6:17 PM

Look at this survey:

http://www.valpo.edu/geomet/geo/courses/geo200/religion.html

Check the LDS page, statistically speaking, LDS/Mormons are not as big a force in Nevada as you'd think, Las Vegas and Reno are more the population centers.

Jim

Posted by Jim | February 5, 2007 6:48 PM

3. I don't believe the vouchers will come close to covering the average private school tuition, but will definitely help out the richer ones who already can afford the private schools.

Actually, if you read the story, you might note that the vouchers are means tested.

Posted by Al | February 5, 2007 6:55 PM

If anyone had googled "lds private school", they would have found this article in the Salt Lake DesNews, which reports that the LDS church operates very few private schools, none of which are in Utah.

There's also this quote from a church official: "It has long been the policy of the church not to consider providing elementary and secondary schools where there are adequate public schools available to our members."

So unless the LDS church decides to reverse course, it will not be receiving any Utah voucher money.

Posted by kwo | February 5, 2007 7:39 PM

Even if LDS became the de facto provider of education in Utah, that wouldn't even hit at the core of the problem with vouchers: they take away funding for public education, which has more potential to education a greater number of children. Vouchers are wrong in Utah, wrong in Washington, D.C., and they're wrong everywhere else.

Posted by Matthew Struhar | February 5, 2007 8:02 PM

I know it's a cheap shot, but I've got to quote:

"Public education... has more potential to education a greater number of children."

It seems that some of our children may need a bit more education.

Anyhow, how do you measure "potential to educate," and why is it that public schools have the potential to educate a greater number of children? If we grant for the sake of argument that a voucher-fed private school can educate as well as a public school, why wouldn't the capacity of private schools grow on the stream of money until they could handle everyone who wanted a private school education?

It will be interesting to see what Utah looks like in ten years or so. I admit I'm dubious of vouchers not because I worry they'll ruin public schools (in my locality (Santa Cruz, California), public schools seemed pretty well ruined already), but that I'm afraid that vouchers will ruin private schools. Once we, the taxpayers, are paying for private education, it seems inevitable that we'll start nosing around in the administration of private schools. Just get one good scandal where the public moneys are diverted to a non-educational use, and it seems to me that you'll have the voters crying for "standards."

Posted by Michael B Sullivan | February 5, 2007 8:18 PM

"Actually, if you read the story, you might note that the vouchers are means tested."

If Utah starts means testing single malt whiskey and high class whores that might be a reason to move there.

Posted by Linus | February 5, 2007 8:29 PM

"It will be interesting to see what Utah looks like in ten years or so. I admit I'm dubious of vouchers not because I worry they'll ruin public schools (in my locality (Santa Cruz, California), public schools seemed pretty well ruined already), but that I'm afraid that vouchers will ruin private schools. Once we, the taxpayers, are paying for private education, it seems inevitable that we'll start nosing around in the administration of private schools. Just get one good scandal where the public moneys are diverted to a non-educational use, and it seems to me that you'll have the voters crying for "standards.""

That's right Mr. Sullivan. I don't hold a great deal sacred, but there are a few things; my school is one of them.

I want everyone to have the experience I had, but in the real world that will never happen. Either you're wealthy enough to bribe them into accepting your child of average intelligence, or your child has an IQ in the top one or two percent. Otherwise, forget it.

And if some kind of choice regime is only a matter of time, it is only a matter of time after that that the government sets about wrecking most of what is good about the culture of independent schools.

What does it mean?

No more skipping class on an especially beautiful day to drink scotch and smoke camels on the beach with your best friends in the world, or to get laid for the first time with some tough, sentimental Jewish girl whose Hollywood big whig father is in Europe rescuing an awful movie, and have everyone look the other way.

It is next to inevitable that the principal concerns of private school administrators will become abiding by regulations, and attendance (to which funding will be tied). It will alter the culture of private schools in radical and unpleasant ways, and most schools will not be able to resist the temptation of public money.

Posted by Linus | February 5, 2007 9:22 PM

For a writer, you sure do very little fact-checking. You do realize that this voucher bill passed the Utah House 38-37, right? This is in a legislature that's 70% Republican and 80% LDS. (Mormon Democrats? Who knew?) If Mormons are as heterogeneous and "hierarchical" as you claim, how is it that they are so sharply divided on the voucher issue? Could it be that *gasp* we don't all agree on every single issue? Again, who knew?

You're also flat-out wrong about LDS schools. The only church-owned schools in this state are universities and colleges. As someone else already noted, the church doesn't believe it has a compelling interest in elementary and secondary education, deferring to children. Most of the private schools in the Salt Lake area are either non-sectarian or non-LDS. But it's not like you can be bothered to do research, now is it?

I'd like to see if you can back up your claim that the church receives "a lot" of tax money. Got some examples or is this more empty "fact-stating" like the rest of this post?

Leave it to some out-of-state nitwit to second guess what we do. What a shame you can call yourself a "professional" journalist. Your type of sloppy work and made-up "facts" reeks like Jayson Blair.

Posted by Jesse Harris | February 6, 2007 10:41 AM

"Leave it to some out-of-state nitwit to second guess what we do. What a shame you can call yourself a "professional" journalist. Your type of sloppy work and made-up "facts" reeks like Jayson Blair."

Dear editor man,

Your employee Julio Yglesias (or whatever his name is) is a big, dumb jerk. You should totally fire him.

Bestest regards,

Linus

Posted by Linus | February 6, 2007 12:08 PM

The problem with vouchers does not come from who provides the education, or even that they subvert public education leading to school decline, it is that hardcore market zealots forget the dynamics of the market. Private schools are just that...private. There is an inherent sense of exclusivity, and a presumption of superiority. To maintain exclusivity and the presumption of superiority, and because the demand has increased as well as an ample supply of money, private school will simply raise their tuition to exclude those whom they don't want, or refuse to accept the vouchers. And, its perfectly legal because they are, after all, private.

Additionally, one of the things that we take for granted is the relative transparency of the administration of public schools. When school boundaries are changed, it must be brought to public notice and comment. The standards for teacher licensing is a matter of state law. The learning material is agreed upon by educational specialists and members of the public and their lesson plans are freely available to the public. Private schools are private; you have very limited access.

Taking a page from the governmental outsourcing handbook, government outsources when it no longer wants to be politically liable for a public service. When Federal and State governments are reduced in size, it's not because the services they provide are no longer needed, it's because both State and Federal Government unload its responsibilities onto the nonprofit/NGO sector, who are not politically accountable. In fact when the government reduces its size, former bureaucrats simply transition to the newly formed nonprofit and usually get a pay raise--less regulation mean a larger personnel budget. But this does not mean that the nonprofits are doing a better job, it just means that government looks better for "getting rid of the bureaucracy."

All too often we forget why somethings were appropriated by government. In most instances government maintains a service because it is needed by the public and is not economically viable for a private corporation to do so. The classic example is the snowplow industry, only government can afford to have these huge vehicles sitting idle for 7-9 months out of the year, yet who would rationally argue that they aren't needed. The second reason that government runs a service is because of corruption. Nobody remembers the old fire-brigades, where the fire-fighters would only come to your rescue if you paid their exorbitant "insurance premiums," yet there were no alternative providers because of the collusion amongst all the regional providers; it was also surprising how often homes managed to catch fire too.

The other problem for vouchers is that the money has some serious strings attached to it. Of course the state is going regulate how the money is used, and enforce conditions that must be maintained to be eligible for the money--the state doesn't want to appear negligent in "caring for our children's future." Just like when the State accepts Federal money, private schools will become the State's puppet to get the money. The state will want to make sure that private school teachers are properly licensed and that private school are living up to "No Child Left Behind," as again, we would want the state to be negligent or irresponsible with our children.

All in all, it would be better for the state to deregulate some school regulations, cut school administrators, get rid of superfluous programs, and contract with private teacher firms. Private teaching firms would compete by contracting for the lowest price for the highest quality curriculum and works in much the same way as a temp. agency. If students fail independently developed achievement tests then schools can fire the firm or discontinue the contract of individual teachers at the end of the school year. This keeps the school's infrastructure intact and yet provides all the same benefits of a voucher system. Surprisingly, the majority of temporary employees prefer working for their agency than for the corporations at which they are temping: better salaries, better benefits, and greater freedom.

Posted by Halospawn | February 6, 2007 8:39 PM

a few notes from a native:

1. as others have pointed out, the mormon church has gotten out of the primary education business - i think this happened in the 1970's, as part of a broad divestiture of church interests not core to the church's mission. they are not going to reverse this any decade soon and i doubt ever.

2. while the church itself does not run primary schools there *are* a number of private schools that cater to mormon parents and include mormon ciriculum. but my perception is that only a small subset of practicing mormon parents find these religious schools attractive. this would be the "othrodox" set, or as we would say, the "mollys."

3. as poll after poll shows, a huge majority of uthans strongly support public education and want more, not less, money spent on it even it that requires raising taxes. as with almost every issue, the legislature is far to the right of the public on education issue, including vouchers.

4. the reason the legislature is so out of sync with the public is because so many seats in the legislature are decided in the republican primaries when no one is paying attention - or worse still the republican state convention. for example, an incumbent GOP rep. in my area, who's also a public school teacher, was not even allowed on the GOP primary ballot in 2006 after he crossed the voucher lobbyists and they tossed thousands of out-of-state dollars to his challenger at the state convention.

5. in all, i think half a dozen GOP incumbents, all thoroughly conservative, were targeted by the voucher lobby in 2006 and most were knocked out and replaced with pro voucher stooges. these lobbyists bring in tens of thousands of dollars from out of state and spend or threaten to spend them against small district reps that normally raise barely any money at all for the campaign (since they usually run either unopposed or against token dem opposition).

Posted by jethro | February 6, 2007 9:50 PM

i forgot another important factor...

6. pretty much all practicing mormons in utah (and nationwide) send their high school kids to a 1-hour course at offical church seminaries (either before school or on time-release). this is yet another reason mainstream mormon parents don't feel the need for mormon private education. in fact, with the seminary program being *the* official church program, to some these unofficial "mormon" private schools seem a bit presumptive.

Posted by jethro | February 6, 2007 11:04 PM